Under Article 1 Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution a warrantless search of a pretrial detainee's cell is unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement can be shown.

Defendant appealed denial of motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was accused of rape and accused of violating a restraining order. Defendant was arrested, and wrote a manuscript while being detained pretrial. An inmate informed police about the manuscript, and the police then performed a warrantless search and found the manuscript in Defendant’s cell. Defendant moved to have the manuscript suppressed at a pretrial hearing according to Article 1 Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion and held the search was within the policy for jail searches. The trial court also held that Defendant was not entitled to an expectation of privacy in a jail cell. The manuscript was admitted into evidence and the Defendant was convicted. Defendant appealed denial of motion to suppress the manuscript. The Court of Appeals held that under Article 1 Section 9, Defendant’s right to privacy was violated by the warrantless search that produced the manuscript. The Court further held that the manuscript was central to convicting Defendant on the rape charges and therefore most likely had an effect on the jury. However it would not have affected any of the other charges. Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part.